TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us judgments that there is absolutely no provision available under the Act contemplating prior sanction for initiating prosecution of the offence under the Act. According to the respondent, there was a delay for obtaining sanction from the authority concerned and as such the complaint was lodged belatedly. Further the respondent had knowledge about the commission of the offence by the petitioners company as early as on 14.06.2018. Since, there is no provision available under the Act contemplating the prior sanction for initiating prosecution for the offence under the Act, the knowledge of the alleged commission of offence must have come to the notice of the Central Government. The consent or sanction as has been referred to in sub-clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, as against the petitioners and others for the offence punishable under Section 185(2) of the Act. The crux of the complaint is that the petitioners company viz., M/s.Dalmia Bharat Limited was inspected under Section 206 of the Act, by an Officer authorized by the Central Government. He had observed that the company without obtaining the previous approval of the Central Government had made loan to M/s. Dalmia Bharat Sugar Industries Limited, in which the Directors of the company are interested as common directors. The details of loans given were also furnished in the balance sheet as at 31.03.2014 to 31.03.2015 under the related party transaction. Thus, the provisions of Section 185 of the Act, have been violated by the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion order from the Ministry of Company Affairs dated 01.05.2006 is unacceptable. It is relevant to note that as early as on 23.10.2003 itself the Government passed an order to investigate into the affairs of the company by appointing Mr. Sharad Krishan Sharma as Inspector to investigate into the affairs of the company, viz., DSQ Software Limited. Therefore, the Government could have had the knowledge even as early as in the year 2003 itself about the alleged commission of the offence by the said company under Section 207 of the Act as per the document dated 23.10.2003 produced by the learned ACGSC. As already pointed out, there is no provision available under the Companies Act contemplating the prior sanction for initiating prosecution for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e previous consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority is required for the institution of any prosecution for an offence, than, in computing the period of limitation, the period of such notice or, as the case may be, the time required for obtaining such consent or sanction shall be excluded. Explanation. In computing the time required for obtaining the consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority, the date on which the application was made for obtaining the consent or sanction and the date of receipt of the order of the Government or other authority shall both be excluded. 9. Referring to the said provision, the learned counsel submitted that in the instant case, the 6 Central Government gave permissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs. During the inspection, it was found that the petitioners did not act in due compliance of the provisions of Section 185 of the Act. Therefore, they liable to be punished under Section 185(2) of the Act. Thus, the respondent issued show cause notice on 14.06.2018 and on receipt of the reply found that it was not satisfactory. Therefore, the respondent lodged the impugned complaint before the concerned Court for the offence punishable under Section 185(2) of the Act. It is a compoundable offence, but neither the petitioners nor other accused persons took any steps to compound the said offence, even though the petitioners are well aware of the offence committed by them. 4.1. He further submitted that after inspection, a report was sent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion for initiating prosecution of the offence under the Act. According to the respondent, there was a delay for obtaining sanction from the authority concerned and as such the complaint was lodged belatedly. 8. Further the respondent had knowledge about the commission of the offence by the petitioners company as early as on 14.06.2018. Since, there is no provision available under the Act contemplating the prior sanction for initiating prosecution for the offence under the Act, the knowledge of the alleged commission of offence must have come to the notice of the Central Government. The consent or sanction as has been referred to in sub-clause 3 of Section 470 of Cr.P.C., relates to consent or sanction which is obtained under the Statute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
